Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2008-12

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in December 2008, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.

This is an undated information list rather than a copy of as specifically identified publication. As information which could change when additional countries ratify the protocol, it is not appropriate to this site. Eclecticology (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Agree with this rationale by Eclecticology (talk • contribs) - the page does not seem appropriate for this project. Cirt (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The source is not the problem. By its nature a "status" article can never be complete; it's a moving target. Our version is from Novemeber 2003, while the version on the outside link is current to October 1, 2008. Unless someone is willing to keep this up to date we will never have a reliable text. Eclecticology (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Our content should generally consist of documents which are "closed" and fixed in form. I'd make exceptions for statutes, but not for what is essentially a list. BD2412T 00:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

KeepIt is possible to have more than one reversion of the list on site. As long as each list is dated and includes the accurate content for that date, then we can consider each revision of the list a "closed and fixed" document. FloNight (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Unlike an author's work in progress, which changes because the author prefers different wording or decides to provide different content, a list of this sort is an accurate reflection of information on a particular date. The update at a later date is similar to an author issuing a new version of his history textbook with more contemporary historical events included. The intent of the Evolving works section of the policy is to exclude temporary versions of a work because it is still being rewritten in order to achieve the desired wording or presentation. I don't think it was intended to exclude information that is time sensitive and will change over time because of changing events. And In this instance, I don't think we should exclude an list that is dated just because it may change in the future as real world events change. FloNight (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere is your alleged intent expressed in the policy. Wikisource is about texts; it is not about information. Information is an important byproduct of those texts, but it is not the primary purpose of the site. The argument that we are allowing the contributor to evolve his wording or presentation may make sense in Wikipedia, but not here where to do so would alter the original writing. Using Transwiki to send this over to Wikipedia where they can discuss this point woulkd be a workable solution. Eclecticology (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't be a slave to policy if it restricts the addition of texts for no good reason. I see the list on that date as set text. We need to agree to disagree, okay? :-) FloNight (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was a good idea at the time, but it never caught on. It still only has the one item in it that was put there when it was started. It could be merged back into Wikisource:Anonymous works for now. The latter has survived two deletion discussions, but is still on shaky ground. It could use some fresh ideas apart from this discussion. Eclecticology (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have merged my page into the standard page. I have also tweaked {{header}} to understand "author = unknown", so that it works more like the translator parameter; see [2]. We need to break "unknown" authorship down into more meaningful groups. John Vandenberg(chat) 00:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I do understand what you are getting at. I found most of my recent deletion proposals by tracing through from Category:Wikisource backlog. There are still 96 items listed in the unknown translators group, but unlike this or the copyvio page there seems to be no mechanism for actively discussing them, and making decisions. I suspect that some of them should survive, but they need work. Eclecticology (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry; I was not clear. We have a lot of works that are attributed to "Anonymous" or "Unknown", however those are very vague descriptors, and I suspect they are being used interchangeably. We should have a taxonomy that groups together works that the author was

likely to have been known at the time, but

but this information has been lost and is assumed will never be found

Wikisource doesnt know it, and more research is required

published as "Anonymous", and

a person later claimed authorship

yet the authorship is generally accepted to be a certain person

published as "Anonymous", with intent to be kept anonymous for fear of life and limb